The abuse of sacred religious symbols is undoubtedly one of the manifestations of an absent or rather weak culture of coexistence and respect for the other, both in societies and among individuals. This generalization may very well be valid.
A person’s deviation from the established rules of behavior in society does not mean that society as a whole is stigmatized for bad behavior or unacceptable expression on religious, social, or value grounds. This, in turn, does not preclude such behavior by an individual from being a general tendency in his or her community.
As for the remarks insulting the Prophet (PBUH) by the spokesman of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India, events make it clear that rivalry and sectarian polarization are indeed a time bomb no less dangerous than other threats to our region and the world.
For those who do not believe this, it is worthwhile to read at least a little about the anger that these remarks have provoked in the Gulf region and throughout the Arab and Islamic world. Moreover, these remarks have provoked the ire of the nearly 200 million Muslims in India.
Also noteworthy is the impact of sectarian polarization and its disastrous consequences not in India but in the various states and regions suffering from this grave social calamity. These offending statements resemble similar crises in the record of repeated abuse. But they are of a very different nature as to their source.
In the West, for example, there have been several such abuses. But by people who are outside the system of state and politics. So now they were mostly associated with arguments and claims for freedom of speech and expression.
But they have brought nothing but moral and economic harm to their own countries. Personally, I do not know how a party official representing the positions, directions and policies of her ruling party can make statements insulting the Messenger of a religion practiced by no small percentage of her country’s population in the recent crisis.
She is supposed to be aware of the consequences of such positions, both in terms of her country’s foreign relations and in terms of the very fragile interfaith situation in her country, as well as the fact that some domestic issues have cross-border implications, especially in the area of religion.
Moreover, her position dictates an awareness of the political price of expressing inappropriate views and deviating from a common model and line that serve the interests of her country. Dealing with the crisis caused by the offensive remarks of the Prophet (PBUH) is not only a concern of the Indian state but also of its partners in the Gulf countries. Millions of Indians work and live there.
These countries have an interest in laying the foundations of security, stability and social peace and ensuring that no tensions are passed on to them. The key to overcoming this crisis, examining its impact, mitigating its consequences, and preventing its recurrence based on lessons learned lies in working together.
Addressing such rejected practices by calling for a trade and economic boycott might well be a solution for some. But it misses the heart of the problem, the spreading culture of hatred and incitement that is taking root in the minds of many around the world.
Moreover, in the case of India-Gulf relations, given the depth and scope of intertwined and overlapping strategic interests, a boycott would hurt both sides.
In terms of political analysis, the ruling BJP in India has a valuable opportunity in this crisis to distance itself from many unilateral positions and policies and to score a victory for pluralism and freedom of belief in a country that wants to and can rise to world prominence.
Religious offense and a weak culture of coexistence
Undoubtedly, the abuse of sacred religious symbols is one of the manifestations of a lack or rather weak culture of coexistence and respect for the other, both in societies and in individuals. The generalization here might very well be right.
A person’s deviation from the established rules of behavior in society does not mean that society as a whole is stigmatized for bad behavior or an unacceptable statement on religious, societal, or value grounds. This, in turn, does not negate the possibility that such behavior by an individual is a general tendency in his or her community.
As for the statements offensive to the Prophet (PBUH) made by the spokesman of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party in India, what happened draws attention to the fact that rivalry and sectarian polarization are indeed a time bomb, no less dangerous than other threats to our region and the world.
For those who do not believe this, it is worth at least a little reading about the anger these statements have provoked in the Gulf region and throughout the Arab and Islamic world. In addition, these statements have provoked anger among India’s nearly 200 million Muslims.
It is also remarkable to note the impact of sectarian polarization and its disastrous consequences not in India, but in the various states and regions suffering from this grave societal calamity. These abusive statements are similar in nature to similar crises in the record of repeated abuse. But they are quite different in nature in terms of their source.
In the West, for example, there have been several abuses. But by people outside the systems of government and politics. So they were mostly associated now with arguments and claims about freedom of opinion and expression.
BUt they have done serious moral and economic damage to their own countries. In the recent crisis, I personally do not know how a party official who expresses the positions, directions and policies of her ruling party makes statements that insult the Messenger and the religion practiced by not a small percentage of her country’s population.
She should be well aware of the consequences of such positions, both in terms of her country’s foreign relations and in terms of the very fragile interfaith situation in her country, as well as the fact that some domestic issues have cross-border implications, especially on the subject of religion.
Moreover, her position implies that she is aware of the political price for speaking out inappropriately and departing from a common model and line that serves the interests of her state. Addressing the crisis caused by the offensive remarks of the Prophet (PBUH) is not only a matter for the Indian state, but also for its partners in the Gulf states.
Millions of Indians are working and living there. These countries have an interest in providing the foundations of security, stability and social peace and in ensuring that no cause of tension is passed on to them. Working together now is the key to overcoming this crisis, examining its effects, containing its impact and preventing its recurrence based on the lessons learned from it.
Dealing with such rejected practices through the call for a trade and economic boycott could certainly be a solution for some. But it does not address the core of the problem, the spreading culture of hatred and incitement that continues to nestle in the minds of many people around the world.
Moreover, in the case of the India-Gulf relationship, a boycott would harm both sides, given the depth and scope of the intertwined and overlapping strategic interests.
In terms of political analysis, we believe that the ruling BJP in India has a valuable opportunity in this crisis to distance itself from many biased positions and policies and win a victory for pluralism and freedom of faith in a country that wants and can rise to world prominence.
However, the party did not seize this rare opportunity, mostly for electoral reasons, and stuck to its ideology at the expense of the future image, reputation and the current and anticipated future status of the country.
It is important that India and other countries pay attention to the danger of spreading the seeds of hatred and rejection of the other which carries all the danger for the future of this country and the entire region. Coexistence is the only solid ground that guarantees that everyone will thrive in a region that is largely mined by factors of tension, violence and strife.
There is no path to one-sided victories and no way to the exclusion of the other. However, the party has not taken advantage of this rare opportunity, mainly for electoral reasons, and has latched on to its ideology at the expense of the country’s image, reputation, and current and expected future status.
It is important that India and other countries pay attention to the danger of spreading the seeds of hatred and rejection of the other, which holds all the dangers for the future of this country and the entire region. Coexistence is the only solid foundation that will guarantee the prosperity of all in a region riddled with factors of tension, violence and strife.
There is no path to one-sided victories and no avenue to the exclusion of the other.
